The eonic effect as a non-random pattern versus the speculative junk of Von Daniken.

decoding-world-history-ed-1_6dcdx

I have had some amusing discussions of Decoding World History: one critic dismissed (perhaps because  it critiques Darwin), then admitted he had never read the book, and a Marxist critic, nervous about the critique of Marxism (in a related book, The Last Revolution), dismissed it as something like Chariots of the Gods, then also admitting he had never read the book.

The comparison with Van Daniken has to be the height of unfairness: Decoding World History is so far from the wild claims of Von Daniken as to be in a different universe. In fact the strategy used is almost impossible to refute because it says very little, makes no extravagant claims and shows in great detail (cf. also World History and the Eonic Effect).The retreat from theory to non-random patterns completely changes the game and the result is a sudden new insight and relief from the sterility of attempts to reduce history to causal theory and/or the social Darwinist ideology of Darwinism.
A NON_RANDOM pattern. So the book simply points to a mysterious historical phenomenon that is thoroughly documented. That approach defies hostile critics on the spot. It compares the situation to Crusoe finding Friday’s footprint. People have been noticing this non-random pattern for over a century and a half, in part with reference to the Axial Age, first codified from multiple scholars by Karl Jaspers, who, however only saw part of the pattern. So like Friday’s footprint the question arises, what caused that? In the same way the Non-Random Pattern (nicknamed the eonic effect) induces the question, what caused that? Whatever the case, it is not sensational speculation to sell books (my work is free of charge, so far), but meticulous documentation of data observed by multiple independent observers, but often with insufficient data. That data is rapidly expanding, and we can see an clear ‘non-random’ pattern stretching over five thousand years since the era of early Sumer/Egypt and a secondary part of that pattern in the Axial Age. Although this data/pattern is still incomplete it is clear at the highest level what it represents: the development of civilizations, or Civilization in a series of innovative regions. We cannot explain how, here, but we can see an elephant for what it is, a huge animal. In the same way we can see the keynote of this pattern, we suspect, is an evolutionary one in the most general terms. Many, equally as naive in reverse as Von Daniken, have sought a science of history, an effort as misguided as anything in the Chariots of the Gods model. And that includes Marx’s theory of history with its speculative, undocumented, and scientifically baseless ‘stages of production’ theory. The model derived from the eonic effect is left incomplete, makes no claims for a science of history, but restricts itself to the rock-solid claim for a non-random pattern. The implication however can still be clear: a definite developmental sequence, just the kind of thing we would expect for the mystery of world history. We cannot say as yet what this driving action is in reality, but we can see that it does.

We should note that Darwin and Darwinism, as a theory of natural selection, is as crackpot as anything in the realm of the Von Danikens and has done far more harm. Not a single case in deep time has been observed, so how could any know natural selection was empirically valid?

So in any case, not a single person has ever in any way falsified the basic observational data of the ‘eonic effect’. Period…